Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 17 of about 18 (some duplicates have been removed)
. it is for these reasons that i believe he is the wrong person to lead the pentagon at this perilous and consequential time. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator inhofe. we have two former chairmen of this committee with us to introduce senator hagel. no senator has had two dearer friends or better mentor is i have hadtors than with senators nunn and warner. i want to welcome them back to this committee. i don't have to tell them that they are among dear, dear friends. it is a real treat to welcome you back to the committee. i will call on you, senator nunn, first. i will call you alphabetically. i have no better way to do it. sam? [laughter] sam, welcome back. >> first, for the record, seniority and age are two different things. senator levin, ranking member inhofe, i am honored to join my friend john warner in presenting chuck hagel to the committee and recommending that chuck be confirmed as our secretary of defense. i think it is worth noting that 68 years ago this month, john warner and listed in the u.s. -- enlisted in the u.s. navy to fight in world war ii. that was the start of
will oppose hagel no matter what. >> i believe he's the wrong person to lead the pentagon at this perilous and consequential time. >> tea party senator ted cruz tried to gin up an old conservative bogeyman. >> i'd like to draw your attention to an interview you did in 2009 with al jazeera. >> but here's the real reason. these guys don't want chuck hagel in the defense department. this is the bomb bomb iran crowd. you see, mccain and graham have led the charge for possible war against the iranians as well as syria. chuck hagel sees war as an absolute last resored. it that's why president obama picked him. the two share similar views in philosophy as the obama administration attempts to define the role of the united states in the transition to a post-superpower world. their philosophy is this. the united states must get out of these massive land wars, iraq and afghanistan, and if possible avoid future large-scale war. despite all of the posturing and starcraft, hagel's nomination, well, is not in jeopardy. not one senator who previously voiced support for hagel has changed his or her mind. i
. yorktown, appomattox, the pentagon where 9/11 occurred -- there is a ceremony tonight i will be commissioned in -- there is a commission in april. we care very deeply about these events. one in nine virginians birth to death is a veteran. when you add in the guard and reserve and contractors, now you are probably talking about one in three of us. we care very deeply about all that is within dod. let me be plain, the threat that virginians and others are talking about now more than ever is the inability of congress to find a way forward on a reasonable budget compromise. that is what is in the newspapers and the headlines. at the direction of the deputy director, dod is planning for future cuts. i am very worried at the macro level about dod's ability to pursue and execute appropriate national security objectives in this time of congressional inability to find a budget compromise. the current cr limits flexibility, for example, of the military to appropriately taylor resources, we have no flexibility to deal with a shortfall. and to me, it seems like funding the military
remarks. the pentagon has moved expand its cyber security efforts. i have to talk about colorado. the air force academy is well positioned to train those new experts. would you talk a little more on your take on cyber security and what sort of resources we need. >> i've been to those facilities in colorado a few times and don't know as much about them as you do, but i am familiar with them. they are essential to our national security. cyber, i believe represents as big a threat to the security of this country as any one specific threat. for all the reasons this committee understands. it's an insidious, quiet, kind of a threat that we have never quite seen before. it can paralyze a nation in a second. not just a power grid or banking system. but it can knock out satellites. it can take down computers on all our carrier battle ships and do tremendous damage to our national security apparatus. that is the larger threat. but when you start defining it down, this body, i know. i watched it. it went through a pretty agonizing three months at the end of 2012 trying to find a bill they could agre
level that he had been waterboarded. he had practiced at the pentagon. he had been working on this. but when he referred to containment on iran rather than prevention of nuclear weapons and had to be corrected and then corrected again, a note was passed to him, and then the chairman helpfully said to him, containment is not a policy at all. that is not our policy. that is such a critical mistake on an issue that he knew that he was going to be asked about. we knew that he was going to have to explain the, quote, jewish lobby and take that back and some of the other things. the way he did it didn't seem crisp. and then when ted cruz wheeled in the tv screen to play an al jazeera talk show and put him on the spot or how he defended israel or didn't defend israel in response to a question on a talk show, it would be like somebody saying to you or mika, joe, you were on c-span ten years ago, and what did you say to someone who called in? that was very, very tough. >> that was sort of my point at the top. >> it's interesting that you had said, mika, yesterday as we were going to a meeti
who is going to be running the pentagon. >> sam? >> well, i slightly disagree with robert. >> i thought you might. >> you know, actually it's funny because some of these questions did produce interesting illustrative answers. for instance when ron johnson got hk to say what difference does it make? well, it does make a difference. the problem i found with the questions was they ended up stepping on the news. they became so dem mon stra tiff and so theatrical that they ended up stealing the spotlight from the answers. that did a disservice in some respects to the question. >> is the real story the feeder of the questions or hagel's fumbling perform snens i think it's the latter. i think hagel had a dismal performance at that hearing. did he seem competent to run the pentagon? there were a lot of questions even among democrats after that hearing whether he's ready. >> i don't disagree with that. i think hagel had a really poor performance. what i'm say something for these senators -- if you looked at what ted cruz was asking about, association with an israeli diplomat that basical
of being an honest broker to find a solution to the two-state israel-palestine conflict and the pentagon reform needs to be on the table that we have more nuclear weapons than we need in the 21st century. those are all very mainstream views among national security experts and the american people at large. what is going on here is you have some republicans not trying to redefine the mainstream out from under the american people. >> john: i can't help but think that john mccain and chuck hagel once voted for donald rumsfeld not long ago. now you spent time on the campaign. what was their relationship then. >> the relationship was closer--it was close really from the beginning. back in the 1999 when i was a correspondent for a network we won't name in which john mccain and chuck hagel and then secretary cohen, a bunk of us reporters went to brussels. there was john mccain chatting with the brass and he would make time for chuck hagel. he said give time to my friend chuck hagel who was a new senator who we thought didn't know anything about foreign policy. now he's the first to endorse mccai
to the pentagon, but let's be honest, it's been ugly so far. >>> and the country says good-bye to one of its most outspoken and color mayors, ed koch, likes to say how am i doing, history would say he's done a pretty good job of leading new york into a new era. >>> good morning from washington, it's friday, february 1st, 2013. let's get to the first read of the morning. i'll get to the jobs report in a minute, but i want to get to hagel. i want to start there. no doubt chuck hagel had a rough outing before the armed services committee, the question is whether hostility to hagel's nomination breaks down so completely along partisan lines. that he's still able to survive. there's clearly a lot of republican opposition to hagel, some of it may be personal. the white house for now is chalking up the eight painful hours to political theatrics and believe these republican senators were simply tougher on hagel than they were on john kerry or on john brennan because they view hagel as a turncoat, but, wow, did hagel just sit there and allow himself to get flogged. >> i have already stated that i regret t
. at the challenge the people currently at the pentagon are facing. host: fredericksburg, virginia, independent line. caller: thanks for taking my call. there's nothing worse than a great secretary and nothing better than a wonderful one. most of the individuals who work for our government appear not to have the wherewithal to know exactly what to do and appear to be on training wheels while they are learning. we the taxpayer take the brunt of everything. while you are a very unstudied lady and are only given the credentials you have having a report card to show who you are, this individual appears to be a floater guest: i think that is unfair. he has done a number of things throughout his career. he is not only a senator, but he was a deputy administrator at the department of veterans affairs. that is a massive responsibility. he cofounded one of the bigges
reasons, the pentagon and the planners have made their own case to the president. and with the new resource problem we confronted in mali, look what it took to support french against al qaeda sub contractors. if we can't do that when in fact americans are held hostage and killed, what kind of response do you really expect for . >> is that a consequence of the u.s. not getting involved in mali earlier? >> what is the implication from that we in effect need to be involved -- . >> the u.s. has been concerned about mali for at least eight nows. -- months only now there's a discussion about where we should do more. >> look, in the time of the great extra cater. we are -- that -- what is threaten, our foreign policy is not manic interventionism right now. that's not what we have to worry about here. >> let's move on. if you have a question, raise your hand. i'm going ask you to identify yourself. keep your question short. let's go to [inaudible] of radio-- and then go to the woman right here in the black and hand the microphone to her. >> hi, my name is -- [inaudible] that syria is part
Search Results 0 to 17 of about 18 (some duplicates have been removed)